Why is NH so different from neighbouring Vermont, Mass and RI in it's voting inclinations? It seems to be much more inclined to the GOP than the region as a whole. Why? Is it based purely on fiscal policy or is it more socially conservative?

Logged

I live in the UK and regard myself as a socially liberal, economic centrist. I vote for the British Labour party and support the Canadian NDP and US Democratic parties.

I'm not from New Hampshire but as it is my second favorite state (behind my own, of course), I will give a go at explaining it. I also have a personal empathy for NH, as it voted for Buchannan during my so-con phase and McCain during my moderate phase.

The state's motto - "Live Free or Die" explains it all. New Hampshire is probably the most ideologically libertarian state in the union and thus has an overall preference for Republican candidates. It has no state income tax and not many other taxes for that matter.

It also is probably the most (small-d) democratic state with a 400-member legislature and an great tradition of citizen civic involvement. That's why we trust it to select our Presidential nominees

It has made some 'wierd' choices though. It has a strong contingent of populists who sympathize with social conservatives - hence the election of Senator Bob Smith and the '96 primary victory of Pat Buchannan. I think it has less to do with an agreement on social conservative issues, and more to do with the idea of challenging an establishment. Buchannan's slogan was "peasants with pitchforks" and that kind of thing plays well in NH better than it would in any other state. 'Insurgent' candidates (Dean, Bradley, McCain, Buchannan, etc.) usually have a better shot in NH because of this populism.

NH is certainly different from Massachusetts and western Vermont but not all that different from Maine or eastern Vermont. (four of VT's easternmost counties went for Bush in '00)

And as for inclination, keep in mind that all three states you mentioned (Vermont, Mass, and RI) have GOP governors

I think presidential elections are a better way to judge the voting inclinations of states!

I think elections for Congress (especially the House) are a better way to gauge the political climate of a particular era than elections for President are. America was far far ***FAR*** more conservative under Clinton than under Reagan.

2002 saw a lot of switches in Gov. WY, KS and OK of note all voted in Dem gov in GOP states.

However the GOP also won in traditional dem states; HI, GA, MD being the 3 most remarkable; but also the GOP continued its domination in MA, which amazes me likes the Utah Dem Gov talked about on another thread.

The GOP is definately against gun control. Gore was severly hurt byu this issue in 2000 in WV and other like states. Dean at least from Dem side supports states rights on this one.

Logged

Currently in Iraq, risking my butt to protect yours!

Republicans think every day is July 4, Democarts think every day is April 15President Reagan

Well I can hear you and soon the whole world will hear all of us. President George Bush

Ok I respectfully disagree. Well one you don't have to do anything to help people. The hunters and ie gun owners don't want anything done except to have their 2nd Amendment rights protected. They don't need any laws or executive orders passed to do that just enforce the constitution. There are enough gun laws ont he books now, just enforce what we have.

Logged

Currently in Iraq, risking my butt to protect yours!

Republicans think every day is July 4, Democarts think every day is April 15President Reagan

Well I can hear you and soon the whole world will hear all of us. President George Bush

I think presidential elections are a better way to judge the voting inclinations of states!

I think elections for Congress (especially the House) are a better way to gauge the political climate of a particular era than elections for President are. America was far far ***FAR*** more conservative under Clinton than under Reagan.

As a side note Vermont was an underpopulated Republican bastion until the 1970s, when lots of liberals (like Howard Dean) started moving in with a concerted effort to take over the state. Perhaps NH's strict anti-tax laws have made it unpalatable to such efforts, and it has remained more conservative than the rest of NewEngland.

I agree-I am puzzled as to what Bush could do to "help the hunters". The taking away guns in Iraq point is not really relevant as I see it, after all, it is tough enough to determine who is fighting us over there and who is not. Additional guns in the Iraqi population (at this point in time) would only cause more problems for US. I don't think you can draw a conclusion that Bush would take everyones gun if he could b/c he took guns from Iraq. Looks like you're falling for the empty Patriot Act Is Evil rhetoric.

By the way, someone mentioned Maryland along with 2 other states as surprisingly having Rep governors. Just to share personal experience, it was truly shocking when Ehrlich (R) defeated Kennedy Townsend (D) in the 02 governors contest, since you have to do an archaeological dig in this state to find a Republican voter or politician. I felt I was wasting my time bothering to vote that day, and was amazed at the result. In my opinion, this governor's race is a great example of what is going on with politics as a whole in this country (the Rep upswing). One of the debates took place at Morgan State University, and the crowd was vehemently anti-Ehrlich. What happened at the debate was a microcosm of the whole campaign and I feel the reason Ehrlich and other Reps are winning. He calmly delivered a positive, coherent, positive message, refusing to sling mud, while Townsend frequently lost her cool when things were not going her way and ran on a negative, scare-tactic basis. The voters responded to the positive message (despite the overwhelming Dem tendencies of this state), just as is happening all over the country. Very Reaganesque.

An American friend of mine told me that politicians of both colours tend to be socially liberal in liberal states and vice versa. Is that usually correct? If so, would a 'liberal' Republican be elected in Utah or Texas? Even if they were up against a socially conservative Democrat?

Logged

I live in the UK and regard myself as a socially liberal, economic centrist. I vote for the British Labour party and support the Canadian NDP and US Democratic parties.

Normally a 'liberal' Republican or a 'conservative' Democrat would be knocked out in a primary so that simply doesn't happen that often.

One example I can think of is the Congressional race last year in Maine 2. The district went for Gore - I wouldn't call it liberal, but it does tend to favor Dems. Kevin Raye (R) is pro-choice while Mike Michaud (D) is pro-life. Michaud won the election even though he would probably be considered a socially conservative Democrat.

An American friend of mine told me that politicians of both colours tend to be socially liberal in liberal states and vice versa. Is that usually correct? If so, would a 'liberal' Republican be elected in Utah or Texas? Even if they were up against a socially conservative Democrat?

I think this is the tendency but there's quite a few exceptions. There's pro-life Democrats around and pro-choice abortion Republicans if you really look at voting records. Until this year Dennis Kucinnich was pro-life!

What you have to remember is that the US (like the UK) have a political system where you vote for candidates, not parties. Because of this things can get turned upside down rather easily due to personal charisma/unpopularity, etc. This is very clear in the US where someone like Reagan could win everywhere except extreme conservatism simply because voters supported him as president. This is why congressional elections really gives a better picture, since you get rid of some of the personal dynamics ruling presdential ones.